Clinton Campaign returned Chinatown Money last Spring

I said I would wait until we heard from the Clinton campaign about the questionable Chinatown donations before I rushed to judgment on it and the Campaign has now answered questions about it.  

Those hoping it would be the "scandal" that brings her down should look elsewhere.

The following is from the New York Times today:

Clinton Returned $7,000, Campaign Says

Published: October 20, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign returned $7,000 in donations last spring that were linked to a fund-raising event in Chinatown in New York City, campaign officials said yesterday, acknowledging another instance where questionable donors came into Mrs. Clinton’s political orbit.

But unlike Mrs. Clinton’s trouble with the former fund-raiser Norman Hsu — whose extensive legal problems and dubious fund-raising practices came as a surprise — her campaign identified the concerns about the Chinatown fund-raising on its own, campaign officials said.

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that it had reviewed the cases of more than 150 donors apparently linked to the Chinatown event or to Chinese neighborhoods, and that dozens of donors could not be found, were not registered to vote or held jobs that probably did not pay well enough to finance such donations.

The Clinton campaign said that after the Chinatown fund-raiser in April, which raised about $380,000, aides conducted a standard review of the donor list: If donors’ stated professions seemed out of line with their donations — for instance, if a dishwasher gave $1,000 — the campaign sent letters asking them to affirm in writing that the money was their own.

In seven cases, with donations totaling $7,000, questions were raised, and those donors did not respond to requests to confirm their contributions. That money was then returned.

Clinton campaign officials said yesterday that they would look at any new information that suggested problematic fund-raising. But they defended their efforts to recruit Asian donors aggressively, and stood by the Chinatown fund-raiser.

“Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American,” said Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman.

You can read the entire article here- itics/20donate.html?_r=1&ex=13506192 00&en=1e9df3b6e5552f4d&ei=5088&a mp;partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=s login

Perhaps John Edwards should publicly commend her for returning the money since he was so quick to condemn her for it without having all the facts.

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: Clinton Campaign returned Chinatown Money last

Dam ,

So this was an April thing and the LA Times ran the story with all the innuendos , crap if that wasn't a hit piece I don't know what else is , plus it involves Chinese Americans , so why don't we just report it , I read the whole La times article and it  seemed like it was an attempt to ridicule people of chinese descent . I didn't even know they went as far back as April.

With regards to Edwards he would say anything at this point to gain traction.

LA times is shameless.

by lori 2007-10-20 03:14PM | 0 recs

Just one little thing, though:

Campaign officials said yesterday that they could not ascertain whether the seven donations last spring were funneled from people other than the stated donors. That would be a violation of campaign finance law.

Patrick Healy - NYT 21 Oct 07

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

and ????

by lori 2007-10-20 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

It's a crime.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

" In seven cases, with donations totaling $7,000, questions were raised, and those donors did not respond to requests to confirm their contributions. That money was then returned "

- Did you read that ???

by lori 2007-10-20 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

You don't seem to understand the issue I am raising, and this applies to the Hsu contributions too, merely returning the money, while good ethics and politics, does not mean a crime has not been committed.  It's like returning the cash after you've boosted a 7-11, a nice gesture but the relevant authorities are still going to prosecute somebody if the law has been violated.  It won't be Hillary, to be sure, but if the law has been broken in any of these cases we have not heard the last of it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

" but if the law has been broken in any of these cases we have not heard the last of it."

 - Thank you very much.

If you cannot point out where the crime is , then the rest is just entertainment .

by lori 2007-10-20 03:29PM | 0 recs
For Example...

§ 441f. Contributions in name of another prohibited

No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.

Federal Election Campaign Laws Compiled by the FEC - October 2005

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: For Example...

Please see the Confirm your eligibility section of the standard Clinton campaign donation form: rm.html?sc=3

by hwc 2007-10-20 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: For Example...

Crikies, man, I am not saying Hillary is the guilty party.  But if it turns out these were straw-donors somebody has lied and broken the law.  Most likely one of her bundlers.  Is that so complicated?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: For Example...

Yeah, if someone was trying that, it's extremely doubtful that Hillary was involved- she is certainly not stupid enough to put down a dishwasher with a $1,000 donation.  That alone tells me she had nothing to do with it- Yikes! She's not that out of touch with the "working class."

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-20 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: For Example...

2 questions ,

1) Is there any evidence of that happening here ?

  -  Oh , you already answered it " If "

2) Even if it happened how is the Clinton campaign supposed to control that ? , the person doing the contribution is going to be held responsible for that not the Clinton campaign.

This discussion is becoming boring. The clinton campaign is acting responsible here and has no liability whats so ever .

by lori 2007-10-20 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: For Example...

1. We don't know, yet... but I'll bet someone is looking into it.

2. They're not.  But if it has happened someone, and it is hard to imagine it wasn't of her fund-raisers, has been very naughty.

Boring?  I was merely responding to your incredulity.  It took a few iterations before you got my point, it seems.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: But...
it has nothing to do with Clinton. And it is not necessarily going to be prosecuted because it is not the same thing at all. People make mistakes and if they are fixed in a timely manner, there is no crime. Sorry to disappoint you. It happens all the time. In any case the Clinton campaign did nothing wrong and it makes others look bad to try and capitalize on this tempest in a tea-pot.
by MollieBradford 2007-10-20 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

I'm not piling on here, you may have noticed I have tried to stay out of the fray on this recently.  But just returning the money doesn't quite end the matter if it turns out that these were straw-donor contributions.  I said it won't be Hillary who is prosecuted, if anyone.  But if a crime has been committed it is likely there will be a prosecution of someone.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  You folks get yourselves pretty wound up sometimes.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

But if a crime has been committed it is likely there will be a prosecution of someone.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  You folks get yourselves pretty wound up sometimes.

- That is pretty straightforward , I 'm happy you finally made what you were saying clear enough.

You didn't make yourself clear in the first place.

by lori 2007-10-20 03:51PM | 0 recs
My Second Response to You

It won't be Hillary, to be sure, but if the law has been broken in any of these cases we have not heard the last of it.  Unclear?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Do you mean indicted like this? /2007/08/27/post_42.html

Federal prosecutors in Michigan have indicted Geoffrey Fieger, the man made famous for his defense of assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, for channeling $127,000 in illegal contributions into John Edwards's 2004 presidential campaign. Prosecutors said the activity was concealed from Edwards, and he has cooperated in the probe.

The 30-page indictment, which was unsealed Friday, lays out, check by check, a blueprint for how Fieger raised money and then, allegedly, reimbursed those donors with money from his law firm or with personal checks. In one instance described by the indictment, Fieger solicited donations for the Edwards campaign from two long-time friends, their spouses, and their family members. The two friends, identified only by their initials in the court papers, each produced $8,000 in checks for Edwards. Fieger than wrote each friend a check for $8,000, and had his law firm reimburse him for approximately $20,000. "The recorded reason for the check was 'repayment Edwards campaign," according to the indictment.

Edwards has said that his campaign will return the money only if Feiger is convicted:

While we do not know if these charges will ultimately prove true, if he is found guilty, we will return this money in compliance with the law, FEC regulations and our own high ethical standards."

by hwc 2007-10-20 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Wow , this is the first time I am reading that.

Why didn't I see that in t.v. , was it reported at all.

Can you imagine if it was Clinton . And she says she is not returning the money unless he is convicted.

All hell would have broken loose in the media.

by lori 2007-10-20 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

TV isn't making a big deal out of the fact that Edwards' campaign finance chairman is the former head of the trial lawyers lobby in Washington, either. Or that the trial lawyer lobbyist has been providing his corporate jet to Edwards for the last two years.

One of the benefits of being a third place candidate is that the media doesn't really care what you do.

Edwards should be thankful that Clinton has taken the high road and not slapped him silly. She even defended Obama when he put his foot in his mouth over his flag pin. As she points out, voters don't want to see Democrats attacking Democrats. Voters want to see Democrats working together to open a can of whoop ass on the Republicans.

by hwc 2007-10-20 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

well well well

Shall we start with your candidate? In the best interests of the party, I think not.

by misscee 2007-10-21 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Yeah, something like that, and probably at some inconvenient time later in the campaign.  And Hillary detractors will probably make the same fuss about it you have been attempting to make in Edwards' case now.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

and that is why this story is highly suspect.  again, dishwashers and waiters, giving 2300/4600 max?  on minimum wage jobs?  c'mon, we all know THAT is not happening.

by iamready 2007-10-20 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Where was it written that they have given 2300/4800 , I think i missed that ,

Can you point that out ?

by lori 2007-10-20 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Sorry 4600 ,

The only figures I have seen is $1000 , so if you can show me where it was written that they gave max donations , i'll like to see it , so I know you are not exaggerating it to make a convincing case in your mind.

by lori 2007-10-20 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

They couldn't confirm the 7 cases last spring

 -  They returned the money

What part of that needs clarification ?

by lori 2007-10-20 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

If somebody made those donations using those identities as 'straw-donors' a crime has been committed.  It's that simple.  And I said if...  Same with the Hsu case, returning the money is a good move but it doesn't mean a prosecution is not indicated.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Ok so you are just entertaining yourself with the thoughts of conspiracies which is fine with me.

If all you have is " if " then there is no really purpose to this discussion.

You cannot control everyone that donates to you the best you can do is set up a vetting process and hope you can catch everything , the ones you catch you send them back if you can't confirm it , this is what they have done . Some will slip through the cracks and when you find out you dump it . Period.

Some campaigns even keep the cash but she went as far as dumping 850000 . Its mainly because its Hillary Clinton thats why they have to juice up a hit piece like the one in the LA times complete with crime drama , organized crime , mob bossess , dilapited buildings , asian connections etc. All  of which made for a nice Quinton Tarantino flick.

Those La times reporters should be given an academy award for best cinema

by lori 2007-10-20 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Crikies, Lori it ain't a conspiracy.  Methinks you do protest to much.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: But...
yes dear, that is why the money was returned because keeping it could have been against the law. Clinton's campaign didn't do anything wrong. They didn't ask or suggest anyone give them illegal donations.
by MollieBradford 2007-10-20 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

It's not keeping it which is against the law, the crime is fraud.  Ask a lawyer.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: But...
sorry shaun, Clinton's camp did nothing illegal. Ask anyone who ever worked in campaign finance and fund me. Someone gave them a check, the source could not be accounted for. They gave it back. No crime on Clinton's part.
by MollieBradford 2007-10-20 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Hello... Anybody listening?  Show me anywhere up-thread where I said Hillary did anything illegal.  I trust her to have established plausible deniability on all of her bundler contributions in any case.  Still, as I said, it's a crime.  And a bad hair day for her campaign if and when the case comes up, no matter who is prosecuted, if indeed a prosecution results from this incident.  

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

I know that would probably make your day if that scenario ever plays out , you just wish it does.

by lori 2007-10-20 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Gee, Lori, I have refrained from personal attacks, candidate attacks, have stuck to the facts and responded in good faith to each any every one of your comments.  Thanks for the slight.  Has it ever occurred to you that it is in everyone's best interests that the campaign laws are upheld irrespective of candidate loyalties?  Sheesh, candidate partisanship is one thing but it doesn't mean you have to adopt the intellectual subtlety of a box of rocks.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Shaun, I think you're being slightly disingenuous here.  I respect you and consider you to be a fair-minded person, but your implication seems to be that Clinton is somehow dirtied by (and responsible for) this.  Your choice of words has been very careful. You state that Hillary won't be prosecuted for this, but you say a crime may have been committed.  Only when pressed on the issue do you say there won't be any prosecution of Hillary (again, carefully worded), but you don't say that she didn't do anything wrong - a significant difference.  That's what people are picking up on, and that why they continue to press you about this.  Your choice of words and tone indicate that you think Hillary is somehow party to this, but has insulated herself so she doesn't get caught, such as here:

I trust her to have established plausible deniability on all of her bundler contributions in any case.  Still, as I said, it's a crime.

We don't know that there has been any crime committed.  If there was, the guilty party is the person who collected the money and sent it in.  Your phrase plausible deniability is a clear indication of your true meaning. In other words, she is well aware of any illegal activities, but has no direct hand in them and thus can deny any knowledge of it.

Candidates cannot be expected to know everything that happens with regard to donations, especially at this level.  If I send a bunch of money to Obama under several different names, the Obama folks may or may not catch it.  If they do, they would certainly ask the appropriate questions and act accordingly,  But that doesn't stain the Obama camp, it stains me.  They did exactly what they should do, and they should be applauded for  it.  The same rules apply for the Clinton campaign and everyone else.  The candidates can't be held responsible for activites by every person who contributes money - all they can do is follow due diligence procedures, which is exactly what they did.

by Denny Crane 2007-10-20 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Well, you're right, I chose my words carefully here and for good reasons too, as you point out.  I have not made a case for Hillary's campaign having created a culture of permissiveness or tacit approval for this kind of fund-raising because there is precisely no evidence of it.  I will leave it to others to decide if they think a pattern is beginning to emerge or not.  On the basis of the few cases which have been revealed or alleged it is hard to make that argument.

As far as 'plausible deniability' is concerned I am confident that Hillary has taken care to insure this, as most campaigns will have done.  It is not an insinuation so much as a fact of campaign life that this is a given in regard to fund-raising.

My point, and the reason I took the trouble and flak of posting this thread, is that the return of the contributions seems to be the end of the matter in the opinion of most of her supporters.  And while that is arguably true, as I said, from an ethical and political perspective, it is not the end of the matter from a legal one.  I have no idea what the outcomes of the Hsu case will be, for example, but the indictment against him in New York specifically mentioned contribution issues one might expect resulted in his prosecution under FEC administered law.  If similar evidence arises in these other cases one would expect a similar outcome.

Here's my thesis, if the law has been broken in these cases one would expect prosecutions that would have a further negative impact on Hillary's campaign irrespective of her campaign's innocence and return of the donations.  That's all.  And that is merely a political reality.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

I think Clinton supporters here (like me) think it's the end of the story as it concerns the campaign and Hillary Clinton.  Certainly, if laws were broken, I'm sure whoever the guilty party is will be prosecuted.  However, that has nothing whatever to do with Hillary Clinton or her campaign.  That's a matter for the FEC. The major point is, Clinton did exactly what she was supposed to do - vetted what looked like suspicious donations.  Any that couldn't be confirmed were retruned.  The rest, as I said, is up to the FEC.

by Denny Crane 2007-10-20 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Denny, they are looking for something to "get" Clinton on. They tried over and over again and failed, because they just could not get their act together.

If there is something wrong with any of the donations, the FEC will handle it. This story is over.

by RJEvans 2007-10-20 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

No argument, but as HWC demonstrated above in Edwards' case, and not for the first or last time, it is grist for the mill of her detractors.  My concern is that it might come up in time for the general election in the event she gains the nomination.  One hopes that since this incident occurred so long ago it indicates that her campaign has done something to insure no further problems along these lines arise.  The worst case scenario is that it turns out to be something really awful during the general election, nobody wants that.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Don't worry. The Republicans will definitely attack Clinton for associating with "those people", meaning any group of people who aren't white.

I wish the other Democrats had more sense than to play that game, but apparently not.

by hwc 2007-10-20 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: But...

Maybe Hillary picks "those people" on purpose so that she can spout off on the vast right wing conspiracy when a problem arises.

Just kidding. But your comment made me think of it.

by misscee 2007-10-21 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign returned Chinatown Money last
another non scandal cooked up by the Edwards campaign, what a surprise. And the on line supporters are reminding me more and more of the behavior of the 2000 nader/green campaign...constantly smearing the opposition with half truths and innuendo. If Edwards should get the nomination all of this attacking Clinton is going to make it very hard for me to vote for him.
by MollieBradford 2007-10-20 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign returned Chinatown Money last

is this flame bait? or are you, the new nick on the block who came where with instant mojo, serious?

It's easy. You hold your nose. This time around, it's idiot proof. You think about SCOTUS.

by misscee 2007-10-21 03:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign

The only corruption going on in this situation is John Edwards manipulation of the truth.  He's a nasty little man.

IF he gets the nomination (hey, miracles happen don't they?), I will need to be drugged and carried to the voting booth to vote for him.

by samueldem 2007-10-20 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign

The only thing Edwards was trying to do is link Clinton with Chinese-Americans who would fall under the category of "those people" to the voter blocks Edwards is targeting with his electability dog whistle.

by hwc 2007-10-20 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign

way to go...hillary is trying to do what she can once she learns about these questionable contributions...

John Edwards has just turned off the hardworking, mostly small business oriented chinese and asian/latino communities and other immigrant communities as a key voting bloc.....

these immigrants work and live in "poor" areas due to cultural reasons; they have started their own businesses and do not rely on federal handouts....

unlike JRE:...asking for bailouts when his campaign finance takes a downturn...

by pate 2007-10-20 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign

He's just pandering to his white male bubba voters down South.

by hwc 2007-10-20 03:47PM | 0 recs

The fund-raiser was last spring -- it's not clear when the token $7,000 was returned.

(Do you honestly believe that only 7,000 out of the 380,000 dollars were problematic?)

by horizonr 2007-10-20 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Why don't we go through Edwards FEC reports and find out home much of his millions are "tainted".

The article said it was returned last spring, or do you not want to believe that?

$380,000 in donations from Chinatown, which is in NYC, which is in NYS, which overwhelmingly support her as a Senator and a candidate for President.

by RJEvans 2007-10-20 05:11PM | 0 recs
Love the tagline. How

do you all do that?

by bookgrl 2007-10-20 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Love the tagline. How

Used an image tag.

< img src="insert link" >

(except without the spaces)

My voice isnt't loud enough. People just won't listen. So it's time to use pictures.

by RJEvans 2007-10-20 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Love the tagline. How

I may add, it is time to use pictures, but not obscene pictures... like DerekLarsson.

by RJEvans 2007-10-20 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Love the tagline. How

actually now it will be easier to spot you so that I can ignore you even better.

by misscee 2007-10-21 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Love the tagline. How

Good to know you don't like to hear a different opinions. You an GWB will be good friends.

by RJEvans 2007-10-21 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Love the tagline. How

OH GEORGGGGGE .... I meant the comment police george, not GWB

Hey GP. Is calling me a friend of GWB ok? Can I do it too? Or only you guys allowed to throw this shit around.

For the record, I counted hanging chads in Broward County in 2000. Do not call me his friend again. I am fed up to here with you newcomers from some alien planet who have taken over this blog, the once proud grandfather of progressive blogs. You are a pod person.

and while I'm bitching, I thought the front page was so not progressive today.

by misscee 2007-10-22 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Love the tagline. How

Tell your friends to stop with their shit. When they call us Bush, Cheney, equate us with Lieberman, call us neocons, whore, bitch, ass, say your dumb etc, it gets old and there comes a point when you have to use the same dirt on them.

BTW, why do you keep telling me about your life? I don't care.

by RJEvans 2007-10-22 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Love the tagline. How

let's make a deal

don't read my posts if you don't want to hear about my life

you really do need to lighten up. Have you thought about talking to someone about all that negativity?

by misscee 2007-10-22 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Love the tagline. How

So now you think I'm some crazy person and need help? I'm sorry you don't know me personally, because I'm the nicest guy you will likely meet this year (apart from your husband or boyfriend if you have one). But, when people like you imply you don't care about other people's opinions (BY misscee: "actually now it will be easier to spot you so that I can ignore you even better.") it shows their ignorance and their unwillingness to listen to other ideas. GWB made that mistake with the Iraq war and completely mismanaged the war. I simply made that comparison. Maybe it was a bit harsh, but it got your attention, and that was the intention.

by RJEvans 2007-10-22 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Do you have some evidence to the contrary?  How much of the millions Obama raised in a few days is probelematic?  Without some evidence, you won't see me throwing stones.  

You just can't satisfy some people.  The donations were vetted and those that couldn't be accounted for properly were returned, which is exactly what all of the campaigns should be doing (and are doing, as far as I know).

Again, do you have some evidence that more of the money was problematic, or is this just another opportunity to bash Clinton for something that doesn't exist?

by Denny Crane 2007-10-20 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Oh, I would never bash Clinton for anything that didn't exist.

by horizonr 2007-10-20 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

by RJEvans 2007-10-20 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

The fundraiser was last spring, and the donations were returned last spring.  What's not clear about that?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign returned $7,000 in donations last spring

Seems easy enough to me.

by Denny Crane 2007-10-20 05:16PM | 0 recs
Finally a response

Good for her, but why did it take so long?

by RJEvans 2007-10-20 05:09PM | 0 recs
Unfortunately from the LA Times article

$7,000 seems to be just the tip of the iceberg.

Wonder how many other places this is happening?

by okamichan13 2007-10-20 05:44PM | 0 recs
Don't kid yourself

The Clintons at the center of all the corruption and fund-raising scandals of the 1990s didn't just
magically disappear. They're still here -- with interest.

The fact is, the Clintons' decades-long addiction to money and power -- and, more important, the
complex ecology of often questionable personal entanglements that the Clintons have created in
order to sustain the system of personally secured influence on which their political viability now
depends -- makes Hillary Clinton a dangerously high risk for Democrats in 2008.

Hillary Clinton is a ticking time bomb with multiple live fuses.

Of course, Clinton spins it the opposite way, assuring voters that, precisely because she's been
in the public eye for so long, there are no surprises with her -- all the live fuses have long since
been found and defused.

But as The Nation reveals in next week's issue, there's somehow always one more unpleasant
surprise with Hillary Clinton -- one more live fuse you didn't know was there.

The one they discovered -- right here -- is 3,277 words long. And it's still burning.

by horizonr 2007-10-20 11:17PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads